Well.. I've come across something I'm unsure of... So I'm putting it out there to the Blogsphere/Twitterverse..
As you may (or may not) know... I'm doing a One Million Expos Project..
I'm currently at 1989 OPC/Topps in my cataloguing.
I've come across this:
Now... In previous years, the Team name would be changed to the new team. For example, Wil Tejada would have "Giants" where the Expos name is.
1989, OPC didn't have these changed. So it shows as an Expos card in the way that the Colours and name is slapping you in the face. However, the Trading Card Database has these cards listing the players on their new teams.
So... My Question/Dilemma is this: Do they count as Expos cards, or are they cards for the respective new teams?
Do I catalogue them as Expos cards, or do I turn my nose at them like a snobbish waiter?
Personally, I'm leaning towards putting them as Expos, since the name is so prominent.
But what say you??
In these instances when I'm sorting, since they're advertised as Expos, they would go in the Expos pile.
ReplyDeleteMy personal rule, if they are listed as an Expos, it counts. I would also count the card if say, Tejada was dressed as an Expo, but the card was labelled as a Giant as he was still an Expo in the picture.
ReplyDeleteI have Cubs in my collection if they were on the old team and traded to a new one or if pictured on their old team and traded to Cubs. But I am one to easily make exceptions.
ReplyDeleteIn my Redsox sets I count them as Redsox cards.
ReplyDeleteYour project your rules. If I were doing that I would count them myself.
ReplyDeleteTo me, they are Expos cards, AND cards of the new team.
ReplyDeleteThis.
DeleteExpos is larger than the "Now with new team" font... so Expos all the way!
ReplyDeleteIf it were me... I'd put them into the Expos stack.
ReplyDeleteI'd say these cards are Expos. If you decide they're not though, I guess you'll be on the hunt for the players Montreal acquired in exchange. Y'know, the cards that say "Now with Expos" in microscopic type...
ReplyDelete